MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995577605 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.18471.27042

Using Satellite And Radio Telemetry To Examine Stopover And Migration Ecology Of The Whimbrel: 2009-2011 Report

2011· article· en· W2995577605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueW&M Publish (College of William & Mary) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationU.S. Department of Commerce
KeywordsTelemetrySatelliteEcologySatellite trackingRemote sensingGeographyEnvironmental scienceFisheryBiologyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) is a large, Holarctic, highly migratory shorebird. The North American race (N.p. hudsonicus) includes two disjunct breeding populations, both of which winter primarily in Central and South America. The western population breeds in Alaska and the Northwest Territories of Canada (Engelmoer and Roselaar 1998). The eastern population breeds south and west of Hudson Bay in Manitoba and Ontario (Skeel and Mallory 1996, Jehl and Smith 1970). The prevailing idea was that the western population followed a Pacific Coast migration route between breeding and wintering areas in Panama and western South America, and that the Hudson Bay population followed an Atlantic Coast migration route to wintering grounds in Northeast South America (Andres et al. 2009, Skeel and Mallory 1996, Morrison and Ross 1989). Both populations are of high conservation concern due to population declines in recent decades (Bart et al. 2007, Morrison et al. 2006, Watts and Truitt in press). Investigations into the migration routes of whimbrels staging in Virginia have shown a previously unknown link between the eastern and western populations as they stop-over in Virginia (Watts et al. 2008). The primary objective of this project is to examine the stop-over and migration strategies of whimbrels, as they relate to the conservation of the species. A total of 12 9.5 gram PTT satellite transmitters were deployed during the 2009-2010 spring and fall migration seasons. Average weight for the whimbrels with transmitters was 568 ± 53SD grams, or approximately 150-200 grams over mean winter (lean) weight. A total of 67 digitally coded glue-on radio transmitters were attached to birds during these seasons. The cumulative data give us insight into stop-over times for whimbrels as they stage on the Eastern Shore of Virginia before migrating to both breeding and wintering grounds. Satellite and radio transmittered whimbrels departed the Eastern Shore in the spring season between 22 May and 3 June and in the fall season between 11 August and 20 September. Spring birds tend to leave during a short window (CCB/TNC spring whimbrel count unpublished data), whereas fall birds have a much bigger migration window as shown by the wide range of satellite and radio transmitter leave dates. Several unusual migration events were observed during the spring and fall seasons. Twenty flights averaging 2,595 km were documented during the spring seasons. These flights took an average of 81 hours to complete. Twenty-four flights averaging 2,603 km were documented during the fall seasons. These flights took an average of 91hours to complete. A total of 13 shorter flights on breeding grounds were also documented, with birds moving from initial locations in along the Hudson Bay coastline to interior breeding locations. The mean distance traveled on these flights was 435 km with the mean time in flight 44 hours. A total of 17 shorter flights on wintering grounds were documented, with birds moving from initial locations in the Greater and Lesser Antilles, Suriname, and Guyana into French Guiana, Suriname, and Brazil, the primary wintering grounds for the Atlantic population of whimbrels (Morrison and Ross 1989). The mean distance traveled on these flights was 548 km with the mean time in flight 52 hours.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueW&M Publish (College of William & Mary)Same topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207